At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'

[CaliCat 3,957]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not calling him stupid. 

 

I'm calling the act of leaving a loaded gun in a driveway stupid.

 

Even if someone were to "accidentally" leave their gun loaded in the driveway (I can't imagine why they would do it on purpose...), I still think that is reason enough to revoke their license. People need to prove that they can be responsible with potentially dangerous items at their disposal. I also think we should be FAR stricter with driver's licenses and they should be suspended/revoked far quicker than they are in most cases.

 

As I mentioned in another post, it's gun ownership 101. Never leave your gun loaded and unattended. Every responsible gun owner knows that. 

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

As I mentioned in another post, it's gun ownership 101. Never leave your gun loaded and unattended. Every responsible gun owner knows that. 

Yes and those who prove they don't understand basic safety principles should have their license to carry revoked.

 

We are very lax in the USA when it comes to punishing people who prove that they cannot safely and responsibly handle tools that have the potential for deadly force. There are many many people on the road who should have their licenses revoked. Cars are dangerous. If you show you cannot handle them responsibly, we shouldn't have to wait until you kill someone (or kill yourself) before we take action. Same with guns.

 

That is only one kind of gun restriction that should exist though. It would not have prevented this massacre unfortunately, since as far as we are aware the man was always a "responsible gun owner" prior to the event.

[Dashinka 24,800]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yes and those who prove they don't understand basic safety principles should have their license to carry revoked.

 

We are very lax in the USA when it comes to punishing people who prove that they cannot safely and responsibly handle tools that have the potential for deadly force. There are many many people on the road who should have their licenses revoked. Cars are dangerous. If you show you cannot handle them responsibly, we shouldn't have to wait until you kill someone (or kill yourself) before we take action. Same with guns.

 

That is only one kind of gun restriction that should exist though. It would not have prevented this massacre unfortunately, since as far as we are aware the man was always a "responsible gun owner" prior to the event.

How about alcohol?

[CaliCat 3,957]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yes and those who prove they don't understand basic safety principles should have their license to carry revoked.

 

We are very lax in the USA when it comes to punishing people who prove that they cannot safely and responsibly handle tools that have the potential for deadly force. There are many many people on the road who should have their licenses revoked. Cars are dangerous. If you show you cannot handle them responsibly, we shouldn't have to wait until you kill someone (or kill yourself) before we take action. Same with guns.

 

That is only one kind of gun restriction that should exist though. It would not have prevented this massacre unfortunately, since as far as we are aware the man was always a "responsible gun owner" prior to the event.

 

Amen.  If you don't know how to handle a weapon, you have no business owning one. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How about alcohol?

Absolutely.

 

If you prove you can't use it responsibly, it should be taken away. Using alcohol irresponsibly makes you a danger not just to yourself but others. Driving under the influence should revoke your license, and you should be flagged as a "dangerous drinker" and refused service.

 

You shouldnt' be allowed to risk others until you get someone killed. We should be more proactive in nipping problems in the bud.

 

We are all adults. As long as the consequences are all laid out, we should all be able to make responsible decisions for ourselves. If someone still wants to drink and then get behind their wheel, they can do so with the full knowledge that if they are caught they won't be able to drive OR drink for a minimum period of time. None of this "You should go to AA meetings". Make every ID they carry say they are a dangerous, irresponsible adult and should not be served alcohol. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,800]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Absolutely.

 

If you prove you can't use it responsibly, it should be taken away. Using alcohol irresponsibly makes you a danger not just to yourself but others. Driving under the influence should revoke your license, and you should be flagged as a "dangerous drinker" and refused service.

 

You shouldnt' be allowed to risk others until you get someone killed. We should be more proactive in nipping problems in the bud.

 

We are all adults. As long as the consequences are all laid out, we should all be able to make responsible decisions for ourselves. If someone still wants to drink and then get behind their wheel, they can do so with the full knowledge that if they are caught they won't be able to drive OR drink for a minimum period of time. None of this "You should go to AA meetings". Make every ID they carry say they are a dangerous, irresponsible adult and should not be served alcohol. 

So the answer is less freedom and more government control?

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the answer is less freedom and more government control?

 

 

So we should do away with TSA, DHS, FBI, police, and just let the free world sync up on its own? You think anarchy is the solution?

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the answer is less freedom and more government control?

If someone wants to make their own alcohol in their backyard and consume it on their property, they have the "freedom" to do so.

 

The right to drive an automobile or purchase liquor in a store/bar are not unalienable rights. We don't have the "freedom" to do so. We are given the freedom to do so by our government. The government has every right to regulate those as they see fit for the safety of the community. That is why governments exist. If we can't show that we can handle those responsibilities, they should be taken away.

 

Honestly guns have far more going for them on the "freedom to keep them" side of things than both vehicles and alcohol. At least there is an amendment about them.

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How about alcohol?

It's always a good choice before you go to the woods to shoot. Calms the nerves 

[Dashinka 24,800]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

If someone wants to make their own alcohol in their backyard and consume it on their property, they have the "freedom" to do so.

 

The right to drive an automobile or purchase liquor in a store/bar are not unalienable rights. We don't have the "freedom" to do so. We are given the freedom to do so by our government. The government has every right to regulate those as they see fit for the safety of the community. That is why governments exist. If we can't show that we can handle those responsibilities, they should be taken away.

 

Honestly guns have far more going for them on the "freedom to keep them" side of things than both vehicles and alcohol. At least there is an amendment about them.

Actually, I don’t believe they can if you are talking about distilled spirits.  You are correct, the right to drive or drink is not enshrined in the Constitution, but the right for bearing arms is.  If you don’t like it, change the Constitution.

[Dashinka 24,800]

6 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

So we should do away with TSA, DHS, FBI, police, and just let the free world sync up on its own? You think anarchy is the solution?

Reading into the comments again I see.  Who said anything about anarchy?  But I guess by my interpretation of your comment you want an excessive nanny state?

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually, I don’t believe they can if you are talking about distilled spirits.  You are correct, the right to drive or drink is not enshrined in the Constitution, but the right for bearing arms is.  If you don’t like it, change the Constitution.

We are veering off course I think.

 

Alcohol and Vehicles - Not rights, therefore I believe the government can regulate them far more strongly than we do now. The whole "less freedom, more government control" here I think is perfectly apt. Treating those two items with respect and safety is a must, and people should prove that they can. If they cannot, it is the government's RESPONSIBILITY to protect other people by limiting freedom. That is what a government does. Some freedoms have to be limited to protect other people. 

 

As for gun control - 

 

I absolutely do believe we should change the Constitution. It was written almost 250 years ago and doesn't reflect our modern times. I absolutely believe that almost every major Founding Father would support changes today. It has many aspects that are old and antiquated, and the 2nd Amendment is on the top of that list. Without changing it, we will continue to be the outlier in the developed world, and a joke in terms of safety. What we deal with in the USA is difficult for people in other countries to even understand. My wife is still having a tough time grasping it, and I get countless questions from all of her family and friends every time this happens. That has been, sadly, incredibly frequent since our relationship (the last 5 years). Terrorism is worldwide, and other countries understand that. But a random retiree getting access to 20+ weapons and using it to murder/injure hundreds? The civilized world outside of the USA has a hard time understanding how that is even possible. I agree with them.

 

It is an absolute joke to think that gun control wouldn't have prevented the massacre. It is disrespectful to the victims to "avoid talking about it". They are added to the growing pile of names that people push under the rug and try to forget about, and pretend that the problem lies "elsewhere". The problem may be multifactorial, but there is one very obvious piece of the puzzle that has been staring us in the face as a country for awhile now. Our collective idiocy won't seem to let us tackle it, and that is embarassing.

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcking

[CaliCat 3,957]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Reading into the comments again I see.  Who said anything about anarchy?  But I guess by my interpretation of your comment you want an excessive nanny state?

 

Reading into what you wrote. You think anarchy is the solution?

[Dashinka 24,800]

2 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Reading into what you wrote. You think anarchy is the solution?

And you believe Communism is the answer.  I get it.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Some things that really bother me...

 

1) Listen to the live audio of the gunfire.  I can hear at least two rifles firing, maybe more.

 

2) I watched video from the crowd, facing the hotel while the firing was going on, and I never saw a muzzle flash.

 

3) How did this guy get so many guns past casino security, some of the best in the world?  Video security is amazing at these casinos.  

1You heard one automatic weapon at a time.

2Are you saying those were not bullets?

3 check in with one bag, go through the casino floor to your room, take the elevator from your room to the garage, return with weapons in boxes from the garage to your room floor, no security